- Sale items. Buy now - stock going fast. Specials
- You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
Forums > Social Discussion > The 'Super Ultimate' Question
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
The 'Super Ultimate' Question of reality.
I once saw an interesting article in a recreational maths book which considered what would be the 'SuperUltimate' question- the question that preceeds all others and lies at the root of all curiousity.
The conclusion was-
'Why is there Something, rather than Nothing?'
immediately on reading that, I felt a profound recognition- it was the question that had plagued me as a young child.
It seemed to me then that, realistically speaking, there shouldn't be anything whatsoever because the existence of something would require an explanation that (I instinctively felt) would not be forthcoming.
I realised that, during my years of studying western philosophy, I had not come across any attempts whatsoever to attempt to answer the question 'why is there something, rather than nothing'.
Of course, many would say that the question is impossible to answer.
The best way to find an answer is to understand the question, and understanding of the question requires that it is clearly stated. On seeing the question so clearly stated, combined with much pondering, a solution presented itself to me, which I wrote up (badly) some years ago, and am in the process of writing it up properly now.
I was wondering if anyone else had come up with possible solutions to this very specific question.
It's important to note that this is not about some general question about reality of the kind which frequently occur on HOP.
Answers based on the 'Big-Bang' will almost certainly not qualify because all big bang theories are simply a way of pushing back the question along a chain of causation which terminates at the current limits of physical scientific thought.
The big-bang stuff has been done to death on many other HOP threads- I've read them all and they don't even come close to what I'm looking for on this one. Incidentely, it would be great if, just for once, Schrodingers cat didn't make an appearance as well
Neither will anything involving God creating the world be of any use as, again, God being Something would require explanation.
I'm looking for a good, solid, clear answer that can be understood without reference to complex and hypothetical theories of physics.
And I'm not necessarily looking for an explanation of the physical world, but of our experience of reality i.e. if your theory accounts for my experience of reality without reference to any actual physical reality- then that's good enough.
To state the question again: -
'Why is there Something, rather than Nothing?'
The 'Super Ultimate' Question of reality.
I once saw an interesting article in a recreational maths book which considered what would be the 'SuperUltimate' question- the question that preceeds all others and lies at the root of all curiousity.
The conclusion was-
'Why is there Something, rather than Nothing?'
immediately on reading that, I felt a profound recognition- it was the question that had plagued me as a young child.
It seemed to me then that, realistically speaking, there shouldn't be anything whatsoever because the existence of something would require an explanation that (I instinctively felt) would not be forthcoming.
I realised that, during my years of studying western philosophy, I had not come across any attempts whatsoever to attempt to answer the question 'why is there something, rather than nothing'.
Of course, many would say that the question is impossible to answer.
The best way to find an answer is to understand the question, and understanding of the question requires that it is clearly stated. On seeing the question so clearly stated, combined with much pondering, a solution presented itself to me, which I wrote up (badly) some years ago, and am in the process of writing it up properly now.
I was wondering if anyone else had come up with possible solutions to this very specific question.
It's important to note that this is not about some general question about reality of the kind which frequently occur on HOP.
Answers based on the 'Big-Bang' will almost certainly not qualify because all big bang theories are simply a way of pushing back the question along a chain of causation which terminates at the current limits of physical scientific thought.
The big-bang stuff has been done to death on many other HOP threads- I've read them all and they don't even come close to what I'm looking for on this one. Incidentely, it would be great if, just for once, Schrodingers cat didn't make an appearance as well
Neither will anything involving God creating the world be of any use as, again, God being Something would require explanation.
I'm looking for a good, solid, clear answer that can be understood without reference to complex and hypothetical theories of physics.
And I'm not necessarily looking for an explanation of the physical world, but of our experience of reality i.e. if your theory accounts for my experience of reality without reference to any actual physical reality- then that's good enough.
To state the question again: -
'Why is there Something, rather than Nothing?'
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Pooh-Bah
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
Posted:
How? How many atoms out of the penny will you give him? A part of an atom? That still isn't the same. That number doesn't exist except as a symbol, as infinity is an indefinable quantity. Can you clarify?
Wow I'm actually capitalising. It's cause of all the big words
Written by: ben-ja-men
i disagree if i make 300 dollars a week i can give u exactly 0.3333 recuring of my wage
How? How many atoms out of the penny will you give him? A part of an atom? That still isn't the same. That number doesn't exist except as a symbol, as infinity is an indefinable quantity. Can you clarify?
Wow I'm actually capitalising. It's cause of all the big words
-Such a price the gods exact for song: to become what we sing
-Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.
-When the center of the storm does not move, you are in its path.
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
hehe i dont need to get him atoms from a peny 0.33333 .... =1/3
money its based on tokens so long as i give him 100 dollars in bills that consist of more than 51% of the original bill (its still legal tender so long as u have more than 51% so i could give him 75% of a hundred dollar bill and its still 100 dollars, hehe yes you could get money and cut out chunks to make more money but getting the bank to accept it on a regular basis is a problem) i can give him exactly 100 dollars
hehe i dont need to get him atoms from a peny 0.33333 .... =1/3
money its based on tokens so long as i give him 100 dollars in bills that consist of more than 51% of the original bill (its still legal tender so long as u have more than 51% so i could give him 75% of a hundred dollar bill and its still 100 dollars, hehe yes you could get money and cut out chunks to make more money but getting the bank to accept it on a regular basis is a problem
) i can give him exactly 100 dollars Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
Member
32 posts
Location: Wakayama-ken, USA
Member
32 posts
Location: Wakayama-ken, USA
Posted:
"we have to look at the limit as it approach zero until we can remove the variable that causes the zero on the bottem line. once that variable has removed we then look at what happens at zero so that we have an exact answer. we are able to examine the extreme itself by being clever and making sure all the rules are obeyed" --ben-ja-men
Almost. We examine the value that we've assigned to mean something. It's a cute little quirk of the language to create syntax that allows us to remove the undefinable term. How clever of us.
The real problem here is not one of arguing whether or not we can conceptualize a figure within this system or any system, but that the systemization of thought is in question--it lacks certainty. Without certainty at the basis of the system, everything represented by it is a near approximation at best.
"can u explain what u see the difference of discovering and creating to be, i see creating to mean making something that wasnt there before, whereas the apples feel before he discovered the laws."
Sure, that's basically what I mean. When I say "create," I'm talking about making something new. When I say "discover," the implication is that the object in question was already there for me to find and apprehend.
"if i make 300 dollars a week i can give u exactly 0.3333 recuring of my wage" --ben-ja-men
Sure you can give me a hundred dollar bill (another form of failed communication of meaning). I can divide meaningless figures into whatever parts I choose and assign any meaning to them I can find reason for, because there is no certainty that it'll be understood.
Hmm...
Even though we cannot be certain that it means the same thing to both of us, I will, of course, take your $100. Thanks. Now let's have a beer. First round's on me.
"we have to look at the limit as it approach zero until we can remove the variable that causes the zero on the bottem line. once that variable has removed we then look at what happens at zero so that we have an exact answer. we are able to examine the extreme itself by being clever and making sure all the rules are obeyed" --ben-ja-men
Almost. We examine the value that we've assigned to mean something. It's a cute little quirk of the language to create syntax that allows us to remove the undefinable term. How clever of us.
The real problem here is not one of arguing whether or not we can conceptualize a figure within this system or any system, but that the systemization of thought is in question--it lacks certainty. Without certainty at the basis of the system, everything represented by it is a near approximation at best.
"can u explain what u see the difference of discovering and creating to be, i see creating to mean making something that wasnt there before, whereas the apples feel before he discovered the laws."
Sure, that's basically what I mean. When I say "create," I'm talking about making something new. When I say "discover," the implication is that the object in question was already there for me to find and apprehend.
"if i make 300 dollars a week i can give u exactly 0.3333 recuring of my wage" --ben-ja-men
Sure you can give me a hundred dollar bill (another form of failed communication of meaning). I can divide meaningless figures into whatever parts I choose and assign any meaning to them I can find reason for, because there is no certainty that it'll be understood.
Hmm...
Even though we cannot be certain that it means the same thing to both of us, I will, of course, take your $100. Thanks. Now let's have a beer. First round's on me.
"To my delight, I discovered that poi are amazing movement exploration tools. They are guides. They are teachers. They are like Yoda, only smaller and on strings." --Nick Woolsey, also known as Meenik
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
...that you and Ben have wandered way, way off topic
Not as much of a problem as trying to see how any of relates in any way to the subject of this thread, which is about the question- 'why is there something rather than nothing?'
Seriously, the 'identity or ortherwise of 0.333... and 1/3' is really filling up this thread, and it isn't relevant and both you guys are well capable of creating your own threads on lines which go off-topic. Especially when it's got so technical that there's only a couple of you who can really understand what you're talking about.
That's OK; someones got to keep things on track
Written by: towery
The real problem here is......
...that you and Ben have wandered way, way off topic
Written by: ben-ja-men
hehe i dont need to get him atoms from a peny 0.33333 .... =1/3
money its based on tokens...........you could get money and cut out chunks............
but getting the bank to accept it on a regular basis is a problem
Not as much of a problem as trying to see how any of relates in any way to the subject of this thread, which is about the question- 'why is there something rather than nothing?'
Seriously, the 'identity or ortherwise of 0.333... and 1/3' is really filling up this thread, and it isn't relevant and both you guys are well capable of creating your own threads on lines which go off-topic. Especially when it's got so technical that there's only a couple of you who can really understand what you're talking about.
Written by: towery
Incidentally, thanks for being so persistent about this.
That's OK; someones got to keep things on track
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Member
1 post
Location: Ohio, USA
Member
1 post
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
It's simple. If there was nothing there would be no recognition between nothing and something. You need something to recognize nothing so if nothing is there there is no way of distinguishing the seperate ideas. This is of course from an idea standpoint of course. If there was always nothing it would be the norm not something and nothing.
It's simple. If there was nothing there would be no recognition between nothing and something. You need something to recognize nothing so if nothing is there there is no way of distinguishing the seperate ideas. This is of course from an idea standpoint of course. If there was always nothing it would be the norm not something and nothing.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Not entirely sure what you're saying here.
I agree that for 'nothingness' to be recognised that something would be necessary to distinguish/recognise it (which therefore would mean nothingness wasn't the case).
I'd maintain though that that doesn't make nothingness impossible- if nothingness was the case then it simply wouldn't be recognised/distinguished/observed.
Not entirely sure what you're saying here.
I agree that for 'nothingness' to be recognised that something would be necessary to distinguish/recognise it (which therefore would mean nothingness wasn't the case).
I'd maintain though that that doesn't make nothingness impossible- if nothingness was the case then it simply wouldn't be recognised/distinguished/observed.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Pasta of Muppets
2,722 posts
Location: in the interwebs..., United Kingdom
Pasta of Muppets
2,722 posts
Location: in the interwebs..., United Kingdom
Posted:
In advance, OWD, i want to give my 2c worth on the 1/3 thing.
I will go to your point very quickly.
Mathematics, as we know it, cannot comprehend the concept of x/0. Try it. Its called a singularity.
Thats the difference between 0.33333etc and 1/3 remember its a infinitesmal difference. In fact, 0.333etc does not stop ergo we define it as 1/3. Conventional cartesian (?) that is 1+1=2 is a fact. We've been counting pigs since we were cavemen.
But 1/3 is a concept x+y=z is a concept. It is a way of describing what we cannot technically quantify. but we have no maths to describe a singularity other than x/0. its a concept.
Thats the moment nothing became something, when, for want of actually knowing the cosmological mathematics that Prof. Hawking is working on, t=0
Towery> simply a place holder. A concept. A thought.
However, on the subject of nothing or something, i have a couple of things to say...
Nature abhors nothing (a vacuum)
And we cannot adequately explain with the clumsy tools at our disposal, what nothing actually is.
So there
In advance, OWD, i want to give my 2c worth on the 1/3 thing.
I will go to your point very quickly.
Mathematics, as we know it, cannot comprehend the concept of x/0. Try it. Its called a singularity.
Thats the difference between 0.33333etc and 1/3 remember its a infinitesmal difference. In fact, 0.333etc does not stop ergo we define it as 1/3. Conventional cartesian (?) that is 1+1=2 is a fact. We've been counting pigs since we were cavemen.
But 1/3 is a concept x+y=z is a concept. It is a way of describing what we cannot technically quantify. but we have no maths to describe a singularity other than x/0. its a concept.
Thats the moment nothing became something, when, for want of actually knowing the cosmological mathematics that Prof. Hawking is working on, t=0
Towery> simply a place holder. A concept. A thought.
However, on the subject of nothing or something, i have a couple of things to say...
Nature abhors nothing (a vacuum)
And we cannot adequately explain with the clumsy tools at our disposal, what nothing actually is.
So there
ohmygodlaserbeamspewpewpew!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
We don't need to explain what 'nothingness' is; we define 'nothingness' (as an absolute absense of anything).
Nature may well abhora vacuum, but 'nothingness' is not a vacuum.
A vacuum has quantum structure and exists in space/time- it has qualities.
In contrast 'nothingness' has no structure whatsoever and does not exist in space/time.
A lot of you are talking about 'nothingness' as if it's just empty space- it's not.
Physicists/cosmologists/Hawking don't deal with nothingness- it's not a part of the subject they have expertise in.
We don't need to explain what 'nothingness' is; we define 'nothingness' (as an absolute absense of anything).
Nature may well abhora vacuum, but 'nothingness' is not a vacuum.
A vacuum has quantum structure and exists in space/time- it has qualities.
In contrast 'nothingness' has no structure whatsoever and does not exist in space/time.
A lot of you are talking about 'nothingness' as if it's just empty space- it's not.
Physicists/cosmologists/Hawking don't deal with nothingness- it's not a part of the subject they have expertise in.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
hehe sorry dave we had to do something while we patiently await your theory, give us the half finished version i know that you know that i know you want to
Written by: onewheeldave
Not as much of a problem as trying to see how any of relates in any way to the subject of this thread
hehe sorry dave we had to do something while we patiently await your theory, give us the half finished version i know that you know that i know you want to
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
Member
32 posts
Location: Wakayama-ken, USA
Member
32 posts
Location: Wakayama-ken, USA
Posted:
Flashpoint (re: placeholder) -- Forgive me, I'm working within the constraints of language. When I say "conceptualize," I mean "apply pre-linguistic logical binary" more than "make into a concept" (which would come with the requisite symbolic placeholding representation). It's splitting hairs, I know, but there has to be differentiation between the thought and it's communicative representative, between transcendental signified and transcendental signifier, else our logic has nothing to work with and we're missing the rational point.
OWD (re:possible and impossible) > If we try to define "nothingness," we've already applied logic to it and it's therefore "something" (contradictory to its definition). This is part of why we can't talk meaningfully (ie. rationally) about "nothingness." If you wanna accept the irrational point that "nothingness" can be defined/conceived/etc. as "the absolute absence of anything," and build rationally from there, then by all means go ahead. I'm with ben-ja-men--we all know you wanna share, so let's see what you got. It's at least as (in)valid and meaning(ful/less) as anyone else's idea, and indeed might be much prettier. I've always liked pretty things.
In fact, if I drink my ill-begotten $100 worth of beer, I bet it'll be f
king gorgeous!
...and, yes, I mean "freaking"... Kinda.
Flashpoint (re: placeholder) -- Forgive me, I'm working within the constraints of language. When I say "conceptualize," I mean "apply pre-linguistic logical binary" more than "make into a concept" (which would come with the requisite symbolic placeholding representation). It's splitting hairs, I know, but there has to be differentiation between the thought and it's communicative representative, between transcendental signified and transcendental signifier, else our logic has nothing to work with and we're missing the rational point.
OWD (re:possible and impossible) > If we try to define "nothingness," we've already applied logic to it and it's therefore "something" (contradictory to its definition). This is part of why we can't talk meaningfully (ie. rationally) about "nothingness." If you wanna accept the irrational point that "nothingness" can be defined/conceived/etc. as "the absolute absence of anything," and build rationally from there, then by all means go ahead. I'm with ben-ja-men--we all know you wanna share, so let's see what you got. It's at least as (in)valid and meaning(ful/less) as anyone else's idea, and indeed might be much prettier. I've always liked pretty things.
In fact, if I drink my ill-begotten $100 worth of beer, I bet it'll be f
king gorgeous!...and, yes, I mean "freaking"... Kinda.
"To my delight, I discovered that poi are amazing movement exploration tools. They are guides. They are teachers. They are like Yoda, only smaller and on strings." --Nick Woolsey, also known as Meenik
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Cheers for getting back on-topic
If we try to define 'nothingness' it's true that we've applied logic to it; however I disagree that it makes it 'something'.
'Nothingness' is not touched in the slightest by anything we choose to do or say about it.
I agree that we can't properly conceive of it by visualisation- we've can't 'apprehend' it because we can't slip past the fact that we exist.
I maintain that we can talk about it though, and define it simply as an absense of everything.
We can imagine reality with one thing removed, with 100 things removed etc, etc.
Nothingness is simply that process carried to its end.
As proof that we can meaningfully discuss 'nothingness' I offer some of the stuff that's already been said; such as me pointing out that nothingness is not identical to empty space.
We can meaningfully state that it lacks matter, lacks structure etc.
We define it in a negative way by saying what it doesn't have.
=========
You and Ben are right; I should get my act together and present my theory.
It is very much in progress and I'm setting myself a deadline- Next Monday.
That's the latest, hopefully I'll have it up before then; but definitly by next Monday.
In the meantime, I'm still getting the feeling that many here are still confused about nothingness.
I think the point you just raised is an obvious and valid concern- I've tried to refute it above but accept that there are issues with talking about 'nothingness' as an absense of everything.
What I'd like to be really clear on is the fact that nothingness is not vacuum/empty space. I really do think that anyone venturing into cosmology/quantum physics would most likely to be guilty of that confusion (in 99% of cases anyway).
Written by: towery
OWD (re:possible and impossible) > If we try to define "nothingness," we've already applied logic to it and it's therefore "something" (contradictory to its definition). This is part of why we can't talk meaningfully (ie. rationally) about "nothingness."
Cheers for getting back on-topic
If we try to define 'nothingness' it's true that we've applied logic to it; however I disagree that it makes it 'something'.
'Nothingness' is not touched in the slightest by anything we choose to do or say about it.
I agree that we can't properly conceive of it by visualisation- we've can't 'apprehend' it because we can't slip past the fact that we exist.
I maintain that we can talk about it though, and define it simply as an absense of everything.
We can imagine reality with one thing removed, with 100 things removed etc, etc.
Nothingness is simply that process carried to its end.
As proof that we can meaningfully discuss 'nothingness' I offer some of the stuff that's already been said; such as me pointing out that nothingness is not identical to empty space.
We can meaningfully state that it lacks matter, lacks structure etc.
We define it in a negative way by saying what it doesn't have.
=========
You and Ben are right; I should get my act together and present my theory.
It is very much in progress and I'm setting myself a deadline- Next Monday.
That's the latest, hopefully I'll have it up before then; but definitly by next Monday.
In the meantime, I'm still getting the feeling that many here are still confused about nothingness.
I think the point you just raised is an obvious and valid concern- I've tried to refute it above but accept that there are issues with talking about 'nothingness' as an absense of everything.
What I'd like to be really clear on is the fact that nothingness is not vacuum/empty space. I really do think that anyone venturing into cosmology/quantum physics would most likely to be guilty of that confusion (in 99% of cases anyway).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
its monday in oz .....
its monday in oz .....
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
SILVER Member
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
Posted:
OK here's my bit of forum fodder. It's late at night (and Ben don't be cheeky, it's only 11.55 Sunday night in Australia.) I just stumbled onto this thread and I have just skimmed it, not really read it. I did a Philosophy degree decades ago and spent donkeys years in Buddhist communities so I am quite up for a debate (just not at his time of night.) SO I am actually not directly contributing to the discourse so much as saying YAY here I was thinking I had just joined a community of people who basically upped sticks or spun things around on strings or did interesting things with their socks. But here I find an array of MOST EXCELLENT forums unfolding.
SO thanks chaps and good night to you all. Oops. it took me long enough to write that that it is NOW monday in Australia. 
OK here's my bit of forum fodder. It's late at night (and Ben don't be cheeky, it's only 11.55 Sunday night in Australia.) I just stumbled onto this thread and I have just skimmed it, not really read it. I did a Philosophy degree decades ago and spent donkeys years in Buddhist communities so I am quite up for a debate (just not at his time of night.) SO I am actually not directly contributing to the discourse so much as saying YAY here I was thinking I had just joined a community of people who basically upped sticks or spun things around on strings or did interesting things with their socks. But here I find an array of MOST EXCELLENT forums unfolding.
SO thanks chaps and good night to you all. Oops. it took me long enough to write that that it is NOW monday in Australia. .....Can't juggle balls but I sure as hell can juggle details....
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
monday comes sooner in adelaide than brisbane
monday comes sooner in adelaide than brisbane
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
enthusiast
275 posts
Location: ati: on: She: ffi: eld: UK:
275 posts
Location: ati: on: She: ffi: eld: UK:
Posted:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why? questions ask for motives and reasons behind events, and to find out why there is 'something' rather than 'nothing' you'd have to go to when there was nothing and see why something came from nothing. But, if there is nothing, then there is no motive or reason either because there's nothing to happen to anything, so if there is a reason something is, then it didn't come from nothing, as the reason must be part of something. So if there is something it didn't come from nothing, else there can't have been a something.
But it depends on how you define your system:
Imagine a system consisting of a pendulum, gravity, and nothing else. the system starts at t=0 when you start the pendulum swinging. There is no way an observer on the pendulum could find out what it was that started the pendulum swinging becuase the cause is outside the system.
So in something terms, if the cause of something is outside the system of something then it can't be tested. If an observer on the pendulum could somehow discover that the system was being imagined by a person he'd end up with a religion. So there could have been an absence of the something system, but there still wasn't nothing.
So there is something and not nothing either because there is something, which means there wasn't nothing, or it is a question that can't be answered in a testable way by an observer in something, and can't be asked if there is nothing.
Why is there something and not something different?
--ben
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why? questions ask for motives and reasons behind events, and to find out why there is 'something' rather than 'nothing' you'd have to go to when there was nothing and see why something came from nothing. But, if there is nothing, then there is no motive or reason either because there's nothing to happen to anything, so if there is a reason something is, then it didn't come from nothing, as the reason must be part of something. So if there is something it didn't come from nothing, else there can't have been a something.
But it depends on how you define your system:
Imagine a system consisting of a pendulum, gravity, and nothing else. the system starts at t=0 when you start the pendulum swinging. There is no way an observer on the pendulum could find out what it was that started the pendulum swinging becuase the cause is outside the system.
So in something terms, if the cause of something is outside the system of something then it can't be tested. If an observer on the pendulum could somehow discover that the system was being imagined by a person he'd end up with a religion. So there could have been an absence of the something system, but there still wasn't nothing.
So there is something and not nothing either because there is something, which means there wasn't nothing, or it is a question that can't be answered in a testable way by an observer in something, and can't be asked if there is nothing.
Why is there something and not something different?
--ben
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I've put up the article on a new thread 'The Ultimate Theory of Reality', located here: -
[Old link]
I've put up the article on a new thread 'The Ultimate Theory of Reality', located here: -
[Old link]
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Dave, even though you has assured us that it’s not spiritual, I would have to say that after watching Compass, (my favourite religious show) on the telly last night that “nothing” as you describe can exist in “Trance Dance”
Will read other thread now
Dave, even though you has assured us that it’s not spiritual, I would have to say that after watching Compass, (my favourite religious show) on the telly last night that “nothing” as you describe can exist in “Trance Dance”
Will read other thread now
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
So we have being and non-being. We must ask a very important question first. Is the "prelinguistic dualistic dichotmy" of polar opposites really a constituent part of reality or part of our way of ordering reality? Recognizing what something is, or is not. We make use of nothingness all the time, but we can not really say what it is.
Taoist philosophy would argue that nothingness can not be talked of, or meaningfully talked about anyway. To speak of an infinite in finite terms is impossible. An infinite is beyond duality. It encompasses both poles, good/bad, light/dark, being/non-being. In a true infinite, all possibles converge on 1, ie truth. You can say it is and is not at the same time. Thus why math fails at the levels of true infinites. Anyone here know anything about infinite math? I think theres actually a studt involved there...
nothingness and existence, two polar opposites, are necessary if the dualistic dichotomy is a real constituent part of reality. If a true infinite is the source of existence, then the it must also be the source of nothingness at the same time. This doesn't make sense, because we can't meaningfully talk about nothingness in terms of existence. Even more so given the other questions regarding how any logical existence (like forms) negate the concetp of nothingness. Nothingness is a meaningless term for us unfortunatly and we can't speak of it, or of any properties it may have because it does not conform to ANYTHING because ANYTHING would make nothing something. Math and logic does not exist outside of SOMETHING, therefore its existence demands nothing actually be something.
Ha! Refute me, refute me!
Im tired. Bed time. Later.
So we have being and non-being. We must ask a very important question first. Is the "prelinguistic dualistic dichotmy" of polar opposites really a constituent part of reality or part of our way of ordering reality? Recognizing what something is, or is not. We make use of nothingness all the time, but we can not really say what it is.
Taoist philosophy would argue that nothingness can not be talked of, or meaningfully talked about anyway. To speak of an infinite in finite terms is impossible. An infinite is beyond duality. It encompasses both poles, good/bad, light/dark, being/non-being. In a true infinite, all possibles converge on 1, ie truth. You can say it is and is not at the same time. Thus why math fails at the levels of true infinites. Anyone here know anything about infinite math? I think theres actually a studt involved there...
nothingness and existence, two polar opposites, are necessary if the dualistic dichotomy is a real constituent part of reality. If a true infinite is the source of existence, then the it must also be the source of nothingness at the same time. This doesn't make sense, because we can't meaningfully talk about nothingness in terms of existence. Even more so given the other questions regarding how any logical existence (like forms) negate the concetp of nothingness. Nothingness is a meaningless term for us unfortunatly and we can't speak of it, or of any properties it may have because it does not conform to ANYTHING because ANYTHING would make nothing something. Math and logic does not exist outside of SOMETHING, therefore its existence demands nothing actually be something.
Ha! Refute me, refute me!
Im tired. Bed time. Later.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [super ultimate] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > The 'Super Ultimate' Question [79 replies]
- Forums > The Ultimate Theory of Reality. [236 replies]
- Forums > Whats better sealent or super glue? [8 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com